[Guille]

Lloyd,

Infinity doesn't exist. Time is not now, but the path between before and after. If we enhace to the qoute of Poincare that you give, this one by Pascal: "Contradiction is not a sing of falsity, nor is the lack of contradiction a sing of truth". Then we get that singularities are not necessarily false because they are contradictory, in fact I believe in them. Singularity hear is not only the physical meaning, but also what is meant in general by it. But not singularity as in 'particular', it's more singularity as in 1.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Lloyd,

Infinity doesn't exist. Time is not now, but the path between before and after. If we enhace to the qoute of Poincare that you give, this one by Pascal: "Contradiction is not a sing of falsity, nor is the lack of contradiction a sing of truth". Then we get that singularities are not necessarily false because they are contradictory, in fact I believe in them. Singularity hear is not only the physical meaning, but also what is meant in general by it. But not singularity as in 'particular', it's more singularity as in 1.

Infinity most certainly does exist,can you prove that it does not?

regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

Infinity most certainly does exist,can you prove that it does not?

regards michael.

I have no intention of being unrespectfull, but the fact that you ask me to prove something does not exist shows that I have the right, not you. It's not about accepting the existence of everything, and then prove what doesn't exist. It's about proving what exists. Proving gravity, proving stupidity, proving life, and, of course, proving infinity. Prove it, and then we will talk. I have many arguments against it, philosophical, scientific, and mathematical. Even cultural, or natural (primitive) arguments. But I don't even need them if you don't start by a 'prove'.

[harmonygirl]

Infinity and nothingness do exist. Guille, if there is no "now" and that is merely a path between before and after, when is after? Because it's infinite.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by <<>>

I have no intention of being unrespectfull, but the fact that you ask me to prove something does not exist shows that I have the right, not you. It's not about accepting the existence of everything, and then prove what doesn't exist. It's about proving what exists. Proving gravity, proving stupidity, proving life, and, of course, proving infinity. Prove it, and then we will talk. I have many arguments against it, philosophical, scientific, and mathematical. Even cultural, or natural (primitive) arguments. But I don't even need them if you don't start by a 'prove'.

infinity does most assertly exist,it is that you find it difficult,or impossible to accept,many millions do we are one of them!
kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Infinity and nothingness do exist. Guille, if there is no "now" and that is merely a path between before and after, when is after? Because it's infinite.

I never said that there is no now. I said that time is not a now, it is the dimension (the path) from past to present. It includes now, and all the other time points between the start and the end. These two don't exist though. And the fact that start and end don't exist leads us humans, ignorant, to the interpretation of the concept if infinity in that something with no start or end is infinite. Things have starts and ends even though these two don't exist. And the fact that we can't know after, and that we know before, doesn't make any of these infinite or finite. I've said in many posts that an interpretation, representation of properties is not the same as the properties of the object. I can call someone stupid, but that doesn't mean that person is in fact stupid.

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

infinity does most assertly exist,it is that you find it difficult,or impossible to accept,many millions do we are one of them!
kind regards michael.

Yeah, it might be that. That I find dificult understanding a concept that doesn't exist. That I find dificult knowing what something without meaning could mean. That I find dificult to comprehend the worst idea ever had in a human mind, so bad that it has lead to such things as unlogical mathematics, millenial misinterpretation of time... And the worst of all, is part of many religions.

[subversion]

I would say that infinity is indefinitely proven, no unproven. THat is because for infinity to be disproven we would have to see that there is a boundary to all that exists, which we haven't seen. Therefore it seems infinity may exist, or at least the idea of it is indefinitely non-disprovable. For example, we can travel indefinitely closer to the speed of light. This means that infinity is indefinitely non-disprovable.

As for an absolute principle, it can take many forms I believe. Stated one way, the absolute principle says that nothing can be proven absolutely false. In other words, one can say that under very specific circumstances something may be impossible, but they can not say that under ALL circumstances that it is always impossible. Furthermore, it is possible to prove that anything is always possible under some circumstances. For example, it is always possible to eat a pie, and if something is possible one time it is possible another time, so long as you have the apples etc. So in other words, if something is possible, it will always be possible in an absolute sense. But if something is impossible, it may not always be absolutely so, given a different set of circumstances. So just because I don't have apples at the time, doesn't mean it is absolutely impossible to make and eat a pie. Using logic, we can thus deduce that everything must be possible in an absolute sense, and nothing is impossible in an absolute sense.

This is basically the definition of existence, which someone else said was the absolute principle. In existence, things are proven possible, not proven impossible. Impossibility is always only an assumption, unprovable by nature. Only possibility is proven. This absolute principle of possibility can also be known as the Law of Laws, which I coined, and which states that true laws only instruct us of how the universe works, not of how it does not work.

Another part of this absolute principle that we can tease away is a version of it called the principle of positivity. The principle of positivity, also coined by me, states that what's best is what's correct. In other words, the true fundamental mechanisms by which our universe work can be discovered simply by knowing what is the best way for things to work. This sounds too good to be true, but it is true, because according to the principle of positivity, the universe should be considered to be perfect BY DEFINITION. This is not saying that the universe is perfect so much as saying that perfect is whatever the universe is. SO rather than being too good to be true, the principle of positivity actually says to the contrary that the truth is the best thing, and that the best things are always true. So basically the principle of positivity states that something that is correct is considered the best possible thing, and so the assumption that assumes the best thing is always the correct assumption. This doesn't mean that since it would be "best" for humans to have wings we should have them, but that since we don't have wings it is obviously best for us not to. So the principle of positivity is always true BY DEFINITION of the principle. This is basically known as optimism but the important point here is the realization that optimism is the physically correct and best mode of thought and the only way to higher understanding and uncovering of the secrets of possibility that we have missed. So in conclusion, everything is possible, and that is the best possible thing. To me that represents an absolute principle from which everything else follows if you truely believe and trust in the principle. If you do not trust in the principle, it will not help you.

[mkirkpatrick]

Well said Sub,I could not have put it better myself,have an extra piece of toast in the morning,as a prize??
kindest regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

Well said Sub,I could not have put it better myself,have an extra piece of toast in the morning,as a prize??
kindest regards michael.

Thanks a bunch for the laws, SubVersion. I have never heard these arguments put forward as well, before in my life. I especially like the absolute principle of possibility. Also the principle of positivity is great. Keep up the excellent ideas... Hope you don't mind me quoting you in my writing, elswhere.

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

Lloyd,

Infinity doesn't exist. Time is not now, but the path between before and after. If we enhace to the qoute of Poincare that you give, this one by Pascal: "Contradiction is not a sing of falsity, nor is the lack of contradiction a sing of truth". Then we get that singularities are not necessarily false because they are contradictory, in fact I believe in them. Singularity hear is not only the physical meaning, but also what is meant in general by it. But not singularity as in 'particular', it's more singularity as in 1.

Guille, it is true that nothing is outside of logic and can not exist, but post-modernists have all made the great mistake of thinking infinity, and absolute doesn't exist. This is one of the gravest errors in history. I notice by other statements of yours that you do not believe in Frege, Cantor and Peirce's infinite mathematics, also, since these are the major propagators of such math. Here is your grave error... Carver Mead, the electrical engineer/physicist/mathematician working for Intel, has used such infinite mathematics to real world advances in computer technology. He has also been granted millions of research dollars, from many institutions and others, for his various fields of work - real infinite mathematics work. Guille, I suggest you catch up to the real world of infinite possibilities and infinite realities. Infinity is real, has always been historically real, has been proven mathematically real for centuries, and will always absolutely be real. Are you infinitely real or not? Are you infinitely authentic, or not?

The post-modern studies areas is the wrong studies area, compared to highly respected realist physicists, realist philosophers and realist mathematicians. Much of present physics wouldn't exist without second and third order, formal, infinite mathematics and logic. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of simple first order logic and math for its easily proven completenesses, but these other systems are also required for our complex world. At the same time, I think the TOE must be developed in the simplest language possible to reach the most people the quickest, as the world is fast approaching critical mass of sustainable survival. The simplest explanation will require the use of infinity, a principle the general populace easily concieves. The general populace understanding is much more important than the lost relative academic mind.

As to singularities, Pascal wasn't talking about a singularity. He was talking about falsely seemed contradictions. Remember what I've stated elsewhere that Ayn Rand said; "Paradoxes are impossible. If you think you find a paradox, check your premises. One of them is wrong!" The mind is more intelligent than simple false paradoxes, though I've noticed many inferior philosophers have played with others heads with them for ceturies. I suppose, sometimes it can stimulate investigation, but...?

not trying to be mean,
Lloyd

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion

I would say that infinity is indefinitely proven, no unproven. THat is because for infinity to be disproven we would have to see that there is a boundary to all that exists, which we haven't seen. Therefore it seems infinity may exist, or at least the idea of it is indefinitely non-disprovable. For example, we can travel indefinitely closer to the speed of light. This means that infinity is indefinitely non-disprovable.

Sub, thanks for the leson of induction. I can also misleade by using induction:
We have never come along anything infinite therefore nothing that we will come along will be infinite therefore nothing is infinite therefore infinity doesn't exist.
But this argument is just as misleading as your induction that states: we always come along new things, therefore one might be infinite. Sorry, none is valid.